A Poisoned Chalice

The new US resolution before the UN Security Council is full of holes. It's been drawn up to throw the political ball back into the UN's side of the court, with illusory promises of "Iraqi sovereignty""

"Firstly, it creates an important role for the UN in Iraq, including overseeing elections."

But how will the UN be able to oversee elections without security on the ground, in a country where - after a decade of UN sanctions - many people detest the UN as much as the USA?

"Secondly, it states that Iraq's transitional government will assume sovereignty from June 30, with the approval of the UN Security Council."

But who are these people? 35 days from the "handover" and it's still totally unclear who the IGC puppets will be morphing into. Is it totally in the hands of the UN representatitive in Iraq? If he makes a bad choice, what happens?

"And thirdly, it gives a one-year mandate to the US-led military force... America's deputy UN ambassador James Cunningham says the American and other international soldiers will only stay in Iraq at the invitation of the nation's transitional authority."

So obviously the US have more idea than we do who will be in the new transitional government and know they have already done a deal. Either that or they are lying again. Or is Bush really prepared to pull out all the troops before the November elections, give up the oil and the military bases, and concede that it has all been a terrible, tragic failure? Would his GOP fanatic followers accept that it was all worth it, just to remove Saddam?

There is a bit of clever wordplay going on here. The new UN resolution does not actually give the new Iraqi leadership the power to force the US troops to leave: people like Powell and Cunningham are just promising that they would leave if asked (but Cheney and Rumsfeld might disagree). Sorry guys, but there's zero credibility left in that account.

Anti-war.com looks at some other problems with the UN resolution.